Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2732)	2/12/2004 10:58:42 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

If by "his policies" you mean taking down Saddam I think a majority of the NR contributors support that action so why would they apologize or retract? Also in general publications run corrections about specific misreported facts not about opinion even if their opinions change. Did you really not understand what I meant, or do you simply enjoy sidestepping an issue? No, it isn't. Iraq had no WMDs. Your second sentence provides no support for your first. Assuming that by the beginning of 2003 Iraq had no WMD (which is not an unreasonable assumption at this point), does result in a conclusion that this would have been certain or near certain with another 6 months of inspections. We don't know. The point is that you go to war only as a last resort. Bush, obviously, never heard that concept. There was not enough justification to go to war but then, Bush had an agenda. You need to read both the classified and public documents re. Iraq and WMD.....pay close attention to the divergences between the two documents. Any dissuading comments were deleted from the public version so that it looked like a foregone conclusion that Iraq had WMD. You have access to classified documents?? They were classified; they are now public. ted